TITANIC revisited...

It's ironic, but had the Titanic hit the iceberg head on, then it would probably have survived the collision. By turning the ship, the crew sealed its fate.

 

That's weird as I was just thinking this myself at the weekend. You can add Avatar to the list as well. Titanic and Avatar are the two highest grossing films of all time I believe but they are both dreadful. It just shows that the general public have no taste, it's like these groups that sell millions of records and are awful. Titanic could have been a great movie, the 1958 version is so much better. It should be a film about the tragic loss of life but instead we get a stupid love triangle with two leads with zero chemistry and Billy Zane running around the ship as it's going down trying to shoot them. I find it insulting to be honest. Pearl Harbour is another story ruined by the film makers need to shoe-horn in some stupid romance and love triangle. Are people not capable of watching a real life event without a love story?

If people are interested in the story please don't give your money to this hack job but watch the 1958 version or any of the documentaries that have been made.

 

I saw in a documentary, that in about 50 years time, almost nothing will remain
of the Titanic.

 

But does it look like Avatar? I absolutely HATED that 3D, looked awful, unfocused objects in the foreground, yuk
My buddy said he read an interview where Cameron was talking about "breaking the rules" and maybe that was why Avatar looked so awful. Or maybe my eyes are weird. I thought in Hugo everyones head looked ellipsoidal, like a footaball. Those kinda ended any interest I had in paying more for 3D (though Up and U2 3D looked great).

 

That would be called a "documentary" not a "movie"-though I know what you're saying, do they have to be ridiculous/silly? Seems so, if you look at Oceans' or Fast & Furious or Transformers franchises. Let us not forget, the movies originated as ESCAPE...from the heat, actually, nothing to do with the film itself. But like Formula One, the movies are ENTERTAINMENT and that is how the money is made for (occasionally) better or (often) worse.

 

One of the things that bugs me about Hollywood is the shoe-horning in of a love story into films that don't need them. Don't get me wrong, I love a good love story if it's a film about a love story, like Punch Drunk Love or whatever, or if it's a love story set against the backdrop of something bigger that plays a key role in the development of the love story, like Doctor Zhivago or The Sound of Music. But a tragic story of many people dying being reduced to some tacky love triangle is awful I think. There is no dramatic need for it as there is enough already there. Good writing would make us care for the people without any of that nonsense.

 

While I agree with most of your assessment, I don't know if you'd consider Leo and Kate to have zero chemistry as to this day not to mention them reuniting for that Revolutionary Road movie, the two of them clearly adore each other. Maybe the chemistry blossomed during filmmaking rather than prior?! And if it's any consolation, that Celine Dion song is definitely on the I Will Always Love You level of cringe, lol.

 

To my mind, Cameron's next film, "Avatar" was worse than "Titanic", at least the 20 minutes of I saw on cable. That was enough for me.

And yes, "Pearl Harbor" was worse. To begin with, Ben Affleck's crash landing in the North Sea at the beginning was not a survivable incident. I couldn't take the movie seriously after that.

 

all 3 movies you named made big big bucks........advertising is so important.

and all 3 of them were average at best.

and a movie like 'sicario' gets no accolades whatsoever.

 

What really sealed the Titanic's fate, specifically with regards to the actual collision with the iceberg, was First Officer Murdoch ordering full astern alongside a hard-a-starboard movement in an attempt to avoid the wall of ice before them; what this meant was the engines were reversed as the ship was attempting to turn to her left, but in doing so, she lost valuable seconds and forward momentum, seconds she did not have to waste (the bridge crew had a little over 30 seconds to react after the 'berg was spotted)... and the rest is history.

Had Murdoch ordered full ahead alongside the hard-a-starboard command, the forward momentum of the ship (then going at near-full speed of 22 knots) would have turned the ship faster and it probably - probable, not certain - would have missed the iceberg with feet to spare.

Also, had the ice-warning from the steamship Mesaba transmitted to Titanic at 9:30pm that night had an 'MSG' prefix attached - meaning for the attention of and regulated response from the captain acknowledging receipt of said message - things would have been different again, as Titanic Second Officer Lightoller (played by Kenneth More in the 1958 film), who was officer on watch at that time, testified after the tragedy that had he received such a warning, the Titanic would have corrected course further south, as she had already done earlier that day, to avoid the perilous ice field that ultimately sank her... but said no such message was ever given him.

And that's not even getting into the whole 'mystery ship' part of the tragedy; an unknown ship that approached the stricken Titanic, stopped, turned around, and sailed away into the night.

A night to remember indeed, alas...

 

Hard a starboard
This link explains why Murdoch carried out the commands that he did. It basically comes down to the lack of distance between the iceberg and Titanic. No sooner does he issue the command hard a starboard, Titanic is brushing the iceberg. Murdoch then issues astern which causes the stern to move away from the passing berg.

It's a whole chain of events that lead to disaster.

 

The North Atlantic icebergs were a known threat and the bow of the Titanic was heavily reinforced.
The slow turn to avoid the iceberg meant the unreinforced sides would be scraped full-force by the sharp submerged edges of the iceberg.
Also, I recall, there was a fire in the coal bunkers further weakening the already brittle steel.

I imagine that split-second decision to avoid the collision seemed to make sense rather than a deliberate direct hit but we know the consequences.

 

NO, IT NEVER HAPPENED...

 

I'm game!

 

carelessness and obstinacy...

 

Are you talking about the “salvaging” and “pilfering” of the Titanic or the waters of time?

It’s a rhetorical question, if Bob Ballard would have taken ANYTHING from his first trip, the sea would have still claimed her, but Bob could have stopped all of the pilfering and looting.

Oh, and Cameron’s Titanic is terrible.

End of rant.

 

I recommend the 1958 film A Night To Remember, a riveting take on the sinking of the ship made with the historical knowledge that they had at the time. For example, some major details are wrong, such as the ship not breaking in two, but that's because explorers hadn't been down to wreckage yet when the film was made. If you can overlook that, I think you'll find this to be a great movie on the subject.

 

not true at all

 

why?

 

Michael, I just don’t have the effort to argue these discussions anymore. Either you like it or you don’t. I hated it. If I wasn’t dating someone at the time, I would have never seen the movie.

But here are two videos to help.

 

Video 2. You can literally Google why this movie is absolutely turrible.

 

That is what makes it so fascinating. So many "what ifs". An important moment in history that we remain enthralled by.

PS - I quite liked the movie, but loved "A Night To Remember".

I had very good friends back in the '70s and '80s (they were twins) who hosted a party every year on the night the Titanic sank. It was the highlight of the social calendar, with a huge crowd who dressed for the occasion, many coming from the arts and music scene. For me, it was a night to remember for 20 years.

 

OK, I'm not a fan of the romance part...

 

gotcha! I get it...hope I wasn't pressuring you.

 

sicario got 3 oscar noms, all technical, titanic got 13.